Idiotam habemus - Trumpum the Bigly XXX - Trump thread #143

[Spandauer]

No grey smoke necessary.

First 100 days have come and gone. Vance has killed the Pope, Musk is melting away and Trump's tariffs are on a slow boat to China.

Coming soon... Bigly's Birthday Parade. What could possibly go wrong?

Previous thread:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5315681-has-the-us-crossed-the-rubicon-trump-thread-142

From January 1, 2024, to November 5, 2024, we tracked every article featured in the top 20 slots on the homepages of 10 major publishers, including the New York Times.

Using a combination of human oversight and AI categorization, we assign a category, topic, and sub-topic to every article. The results, shown in the figure below, are striking:

Every publisher that we tracked, including decidedly left-leaning publishers such as the Guardian and the Huffington Post, posted several times more articles on Biden’s age than Trump’s Project 2025.

Of 14,777 unique articles on the Times’ homepage over the 310 day tracking period, 293 articles–almost one a day–focused on Biden’s age compared with just 27 articles focused on Project 2025, a ratio of 10.9 to one.

Although both the absolute number of articles and the ratio is less than overtly right-wing publishers (Fox News was at 341 (48.7x) while Breitbart was at 381 (34.6x)), it is far in excess of left-leaning publishers (HuffPost was at 204 (2.8x) and The Guardian was at 138 (3.5x)).

Although the Times and The Washington Post offered comparable levels of coverage on Biden’s age, the Post dedicated far more attention to Trump’s Project 2025, publishing 45 articles compared to the Times’ 27.
This disparity is telling. By devoting far more coverage to Biden’s age, the Times–more than any publisher other than Fox and Breitbart–signaled to readers that his fitness for office was a far greater concern than the policies Trump might enact if re-elected.

https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu/blog/new-york-times-biden-s-age-is-10-9x-more-important-than-trump-s/

I look forward to the second volume about ursine toilet habits in an arboreal environment.

I am guessing there is a gofundme for the third volume about the religious proclivities of the bishop of Rome ?

Add in the short time Kamala had to win confidence and lure in undecided voters and now we know a major reason why we lost the election.

I agree with you, though on second thoughts, I do wonder if the reasoning that Kamala Harris wouldn’t have won the Democratic nomination in the first place if it hadn’t all been left so late, is not what happened there (aside from Dr (Ed) Biden desperately wanting to stay in the White House at any cost)? In any case, given the current shower in the White House, there is surely a case for saying that nobody who has reached their Biblically allotted span of three score years and ten should be allowed to stand for the Presidency, as the last 3 have clearly been in their dotage.

In any case, given the current shower in the White House, there is surely a case for saying that nobody who has reached their Biblically allotted span of three score years and ten should be allowed to stand for the Presidency, as the last 3 have clearly been in their dotage.

I agree completely that there should be an 'upper limit' for POTUS as well as for Congress. I can remember Sen Strom Thurmond being wheeled into the Senate in his 90s' basically non compos mentis. It was well known that his staff was running the show day to day and voting decisions being made by 'others'.

I think I'd put the mandatory age at inauguration as 75. A POTUS would then be out of office by the time they reach 80. Same for Congress. I know that Senators serve for 6 years, which could make them as old as 82 when they 'age out'. I'm good with that.

I realize that there are many, many people who are sharp as a tack, decisive, and resolute at 80 or 82. But you have to draw the line somewhere

And what about Chuck Grassley, he's nearly 92 ! And no intention of giving up from what I've read.

@AcrossthePond55 I would also consider an ageing out limit for SCOTUS.

This one needs term limits as well or you just appoint them young (not necessarily properly qualified) and they could have many years.

Thank you, @Spandauer , that is extremely telling.

Absolutely. Interestingly enough, in many states the mandatory age of retirement for judges is 70. Unfortunately there is no mandatory age for federal judges.

I'd put the same limit on all federal judges, age 75. And that would be for SCOTUS, too.

That was a chilling read, @Spandauer .

Queuing for immigration in Houston last week we saw 3 people being marched off under guard. Not a group, 3 separate people. Never seen it happen at all before anywhere so it was a touch unnerving.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/24/americans-british-citizenship

The figures come as British authorities under a Labour government are trying to reduce immigration to the UK, with Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, vowing to take “back control of our borders” and warning that uncontrolled immigration could result in the country “becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together”.

And you know what. Even that analysis of media coverage above does not mention Trump's health.

On the one hand that's OK: it's one study, it has a specific scope and they've been transparent about what that scope is. It's a useful study to undertake.

On the other hand, there's clearly room for another study, this time comparing coverage of Biden's health to coverage of Trump's health. That would actually be comparing like with like.

This madness won't stop with Trumps death - his health or otherwise is a non issue here.

I disagree strongly.

One reason is because it's possible to be not dead and also not fit for office due to health.

The other is that this topic is one where it's possible to do a like-for-like comparison of coverage.

Of course media and PR have always had a big part in creating public opinion. The comparative health issue is a good litmus test of where the US is at in terms of citizens getting the facts they need to make decisions.

Worth keeping an eye on India (because no one in the US will 😀)

• Still really pissed off that Trump is claiming he fixed India-Pakistan
• Really pissed off that Trump rushed into a c*ypto deal with Pakistan and the Trump family
• Really Really Really pissed off that he keeps threatening Apple (remember iPhones are made in India by Foxconn)
• And now pissed off that Harvard - which hosts hundreds of Indian students - is being attacked. Presumably reducing the value of any qualifications they issue.

it's clear that no one in the US has the faintest clue about India. (Admittedly it would be an exception if they did).

Just a quick prayer of thanks that the Bigly Golden Bastard isn't 20 years younger.

I wouldn't say it's a non issue, I'd say it's an issue that no one can do anything about right now. Proposing Article 25 and/or an impeachment and removal has to originate with the party in power. So until there is a shift in the majority (ie a midterms HUGE Blue Wave) we can bleat all we want about his unfitness for duty but nothing can be done about it.

Even with a Blue Wave, Article 25 is unlikely to happen as it originates from the VP and the Cabinet, and he's stacked those pretty good with loyaltists. And even if impeachment succeeds, and we'd only need to pick up 4 seats for a simple majority there, we'd need 2/3 of the Senate (that's 67) to actually remove him from office. So we'd need to gain 20 seats. That's pretty much unheard of in one fell swoop. I think that's why no one is doing 'much' to get the ball rolling on either of those.

As far as after his death, I agree. It's a cult. And cults don't die with the death of their 'messiah'. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the MAGAts gather together at Mt Rushmore 3 days after his death to await his 'resurrection'.

Four partners at Paul Weiss (law firm that capitulated to Trump) are leaving to set up a rival practise so they cam tale cases suing the Trump administration.

As soon as I read @SerendipityJane's post I googled it. Yeah, pushback! But it's also pitting legal firms against each other by dividing them into capitulate/not capitulate camps.

Four law firms have sued the Trump administration over executive orders like the one Trump rescinded against Paul Weiss, which threatened the firms' access to government officials and federal contracting work.
A judge on Friday struck down Trump's order against Jenner & Block, following a similar ruling this month for Perkins Coie.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/four-partners-leave-paul-weiss-following-law-firms-deal-with-trump-2025-05-23/

Obama talking. Never a truer word said

bsky.app/profile/hookcity.bsky.social/post/3lpzrceedik2d

Telegraph interview with Fiona Hill. Trump is actively terrified of Putin.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/05/25/fiona-hill-interview-trump-terrified-putin-seen-firsthand/?#comment

I seemed to be able to read the whole article without paywall by going to the comments 1st. Not sure if works for others. Trump has now lashed out at Putin calling him crazy, after the drone blitz yesterday on Ukraine.

Anyone else have a weird impending sense that something is going to happen ?

Not sure what, but the machine is making some funny noises, maybe a slight different resonance ?

Either way, getting to 2026 looks like interesting times.

News is saying us senators are proposing 500% tarrifs on Russian oil and the countries that buy it (China. India) which would feed into the pissed off back story for India @SerendipityJane mentioned